DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected and claims 7-9 and 11-20 are cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 7 that the modifying the polarities of the magnets of Davis with the teachings of Ashida would change the operation of Davis and that Davis would teach away from this, the examiner respectfully disagrees because Davis discloses as a whole:
“Another advantage of coupling device of present invention is that little torque is required to engage or disengage coupling device of present invention. Instead, to couple two or more objects together using devices and methods of present invention, such objects are simply juxtaposed in a proper orientation and/or alignment. Although a slight rotation may aid breaking of magnetic field holding two or more objects together due to the discontinuous magnetic field, two or more objects may be separated by simply pulling two or more objects apart with sufficient force. This kind of simple engagement and disengagement of coupling device of present invention poses relatively little strain on the user by not requiring, for example, any twisting or torque to engage and disengage such objects. This is especially important for many elderly persons in particular who suffer from muscle weakness, arthritis, muscle and joint pain, etc.” (16:4-21).
Therefore, Davis does not “teach away” from the use of a slight rotation, Davis is simply providing alternatives solutions to engage/disengage the coupling (ex., it can be twisted, but elderly people can also pull them apart and it’s not required to only twist).
In response to applicants arguments on page 8 that the air gap is not present because of the embodiment shown in fig. 11, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner is not relying on the embodiment shown in fig. 11, Davis, as stated above, states that elderly people are able to easily disengage the device axially, which is interpreted that the axial force between both flanges would not cause the O-rings between the gasket to deform to the point there is no air gap, Davis explicitly shows that there is a gap between both magnets in the relied upon embodiment shown in fig. 7c, and Davis explicitly discloses “FIG. 7c shows a cross-section of first and second portions of coupling device attached to objects from FIG. 7b properly engaged and joined” (4:50-53).
In response to applicants arguments on page 8 that the present invention discloses “a first annular magnetic element coupled to the first housing and concentric and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular flange” and “a second annular magnetic element coupled to the second housing and concentric with and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular channel”, the examiner respectfully disagrees as “circumscribed against an inner surface” is interpreted that there is physical contact between the inner surface of the channel/flange and the magnets which is not shown in any of the figures of the present invention (ex., see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/16/2026. These drawings are accepted; however, the conduits do not depict the conduits comprise a fluid passage (ex., the replacement drawings depict dotted lines 100, 200 which depict pipes with dotted line end faces which do not allow fluid to flow from one pipe to another; ex., see fig. 2, which shows the fluid passage 240 at the end of the pipe compared to fig. 1 which shows the ends of the pipe with no passage). Therefore, the drawings are further objected to as outlined below.
The drawings are objected to because:
In fig. 1, the first and second conduit (100, 200) are improperly cross-hatched (ex., the replacement drawings should not depict waves depicting a fluid; ex., see fig. 3a which shows passage 340 which the conduit end is placed).
In fig. 1, solid lines should be used and not dashed lines under 1.84(a)(1). In other words, the pipes shown in fig. 1 do not depict pipes are required by the claims (ex., the pipes in fig. 1 would not be an actual cross-section of a pipe comprising a bore to allow fluid to flow therethrough the end as shown in fig. 3a).
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In this case, “a first annular magnetic element … concentric and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular flange” and “a second annular magnetic element … concentric with and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular channel” must be shown in the figures under 37 CFR 1.83(a) or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this case, the limitation “a first annular magnetic element … concentric and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular flange” and “a second annular magnetic element … concentric with and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular channel” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For example, the specification at paragraph 0018 states:
“Coupled to housing 20 is an annular magnetic element 24 concentric with and circumscribed by annular flange 22. In a similar fashion, an annular magnetic element 34 is coupled to housing 30 and is concentric with and circumscribed by annular channel 32.”
Therefore, there is no support in the specification that “a first annular magnetic element … concentric and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular flange” and “a second annular magnetic element … concentric with and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular channel”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation “a first annular magnetic element … concentric and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular flange” and “a second annular magnetic element … concentric with and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular channel” is unclear to the examiner as to how either the first/second annular magnet are concentric with and circumscribed against an inner surface of either the axial-extending annular flange or annular channel, respectfully.
To proceed with prosecution, the limitation “a first annular magnetic element … concentric and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular flange” and “a second annular magnetic element … concentric with and circumscribed against an inner surface of the annular channel” will be interpreted as “a first annular magnetic element … concentric and circumscribed by an inner surface of the annular flange” and “a second annular magnetic element … concentric with and circumscribed by an inner surface of the annular channel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (U.S. Patent No. 9,279,527) in view of Ashida et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2020/0116284).
In regards to claim 1, as best understood, Davis discloses:
A magnetic coupling system (see annotated fig. 7c hereinafter unless otherwise noted), comprising:
a first housing (annotated fig. 7c) adapted to be disposed about an end of a first conduit,
the first housing having an axially-extending annular flange (14:15-19, where the flange can be placed on the conduit or the housing, even though it is not shown),
a first annular magnetic element (annotated fig. 7c) coupled to the first housing and concentric with the annular flange (see annotated fig. 7c),
the first annular magnetic element having a first axial end face (annotated fig. 7c);
a second housing (annotated fig. 7c) adapted to be disposed about an end of a second conduit (annotated fig. 7c),
a second annular magnetic element (annotated fig. 7c) coupled to the second housing and concentric with the annular channel,
the second annular magnetic element having a second axial end face (annotated fig. 7c),
wherein an air gap (annotated fig. 7c) is disposed between the first axial end face of the first annular magnetic element and the second axial end face of the second annular magnetic element when the annular flange is engaged in the annular channel,
wherein the first and second annular magnetic elements do not contact one another (see annotated fig. 7c), and
the air gap is maintained when the first and second magnetic elements are rotated to join or disconnect the first and second housing (ex., see annotated fig. 7c, where there is a gap between both the first and second housing when engaged and joined to each other, therefore, there would still be a gap when disengaged; ex., “the air gap is maintained” is a broad limitation that only requires an air gap to still be present in either situation),
but does not disclose:
the first housing having an axially-extending annular flange.
the first annular magnetic element having a first plurality of magnetic polarities disbursed thereabout;
the second housing having an axially-extending annular channel for engagement with the annular flange,
the second annular magnetic element having a second plurality of magnetic polarities disbursed thereabout.
the first annular magnetic element circumscribed “by” an inner surface of the annular flange,
the second annular magnetic element circumscribed “by” an inner surface of the annular channel.
In regards to the polarities, Ashida discloses a similar device (see fig. 3) comprising a first and second housing (14, 16) each comprising an annular magnet (see 0058:1-5, where magnets can be on both sides but not expressly shown in fig. 3 but is shown in fig. 6),
wherein each annular magnet comprises a plurality of magnetic polarities (see fig. 6) disbursed thereabout provide the benefit of disconnecting the device by rotation (0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the annular magnets of David to comprise a plurality of magnetic polarities to provide the benefit of being able to disconnect the device by a rotation of one of the housing because David discloses that where in all magnet embodiments, rotation of the housing will cause magnets to repel each other (21:21-29) and Ashida explicitly discloses that a plurality of magnetic polarities disbursed thereabout provide the benefit of disconnecting the device by rotation (0060).
In regards to the annular flange circumscribing the magnets, Ashida discloses a similar device comprising:
a first embodiment comprising flanges (14, 16) each comprising annular magnets (18a, 18b; see fig. 6, which shows magnets can be on each side; see 0058:1-5, where magnets can be on both sides but not expressly shown in fig. 3),
wherein at least one of the flanges comprises an axially extending projection (24) and the other comprises an axially-extending groove (26) to provide the benefit of positioning and guiding of the couplings (see 0019),
the annular magnet of one flange is circumscribed “by” an inner surface of the annular flange (ex., see near 24, where the flange would circumscribe annular magnets that are not explicitly shown),
the other annular magnetic element circumscribed “by” an inner surface of the annular channel (ex., see fig. 3, where the inner surface of the channel 26 surrounds the magnet directly below),
a third embodiment (see fig. 5) comprising a similar annular projection (24) and groove (26) that is inscribed by the annular magnets (18a, b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the device of David in view of Ashida such that with the axially extending flange of Davis in view of Ashida engages an axially-extending groove to meet the limitation of the claim because Davis explicitly discloses that the axial-extending flange can be placed on the conduits or housing (14:15-19) and Ashida explicitly discloses that it is known to provide an axially-extending flange to engage an axially-extending annular channel to provide the benefit of positioning and guiding of the couplings (0019).
PNG
media_image2.png
624
914
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Davis in view of Ashida further discloses:
The magnetic coupling system of claim 1, wherein when the annular flange is engaged in the annular channel (it is inherent that the flange is engaged with the channel as outlined in claim 1),
the first annular magnetic element and the second annular magnetic element are magnetically attracted to one another when in a first relative position (ex., see fig. 6 of Ashida), and
when the first annular magnetic element and the second annular magnetic element are rotated in relation to one another, they are magnetically repelled from one another in a second relative position (ex., see fig. 6 of Ashida).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Ashida as applied to claims 1 and 2 above and in further view of Stutzman (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0033067).
In regards to claims 3 and 10, Davis in view of Ashida discloses:
The magnetic coupling system of claims 1-2,
but does not disclose:
a handle coupled to at least one of the first housing and the second housing for aiding movement of at least one of the first annular magnetic element and the second annular magnetic element to achieve one of the first relative position and the second relative position.
In regards to a handle, Stutzman discloses a magnetic coupling comprising handles (12, fig. 2) attached to a side of each coupler (see fig. 2) to allow for easier movement of each coupler (0018:19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify each coupler of Davis in view of Ashida with the provision of a handle to provide the benefit of easier movement of each coupler, as taught by Stutzman (0018:19-20).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Ashida as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Kingsford (U.S. Patent No. 5,997,049).
In regards to claim 4, Davis in view of Ashida discloses:
The magnetic coupling system of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
a seal disposed within the annular channel for engagement with the annular flange when the annular flange is engaged in the annular channel.
In regards to the seal, Kingsford discloses a similar device comprising an annular projection (24) and groove (40) comprising a seal (46) to provide the benefit of a leak-tight seal (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the groove of Davis in view of Ashida with the provision of a seal to provide the benefit of a leak-tight seal, as taught by Kingsford (see abstract).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Ashida as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Delattre (FR-1349343).
In regards to claims 5, Davis in view of Ashida discloses:
The magnetic coupling system of claim 1, wherein the air gap is maintained between end faces of each of the magnets when the annular flange is engaged in the annular channel,
but does not disclose:
a first non-magnetic material covering the first annular magnetic element; and
a second non-magnetic material covering the second annular magnetic element.
In regards to the non-magnetic covering, Delattre discloses a similar device (see figs. 1-2) comprising magnets (5, 6) each comprising a film (7, 8) to protect the magnets and provides additional sealing (0001, lines 15-17 of the translated document previously provided herein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify each of the magnets of Davis in view of Ashida with the provision of a plastic film to protect the magnets, as taught by Delattre (0001, lines 15-17).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Ashida as applied to claims 1 above and in further view of Fritsch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,829,987).
In regards to claim 6, Davis in view of Ashida discloses:
The magnetic coupling system of claim 1, wherein each of the first annular magnetic element and the second annular magnetic element comprises arc-shaped regions,
wherein the annular magnet may be segmented in multiple magnets (13:55-59),
but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the first annular magnetic element and the second annular magnetic element comprises a plurality of arc-shaped regions,
each of the arc-shaped regions having an inner radial are portion and an outer radial are portion having opposing magnetic polarities,
wherein for adjacent ones of the arc-shaped regions, the opposing magnetic polarities are reversed.
In regards to the plurality of magnets comprising inner and outer polarities, Fritsch discloses a similar magnetic device (see fig. 3) comprising obvious variants (2:45-46, where multiple coding possibilities for magnets) between:
a first magnetic embodiment comprising four magnets comprising opposite polarities comprising polarities that change circumferentially (see fig. 5),
a second magnetic embodiment comprising multiple magnets comprising polarities that change circumferentially (see fig. 6),
a third magnetic embodiment comprising multiple magnets comprising polarities that change radially (see fig. 7, where the polarities change radially).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify annular magnet of Davis in view of Ashida such that the annular magnet is comprised of a plurality of magnets comprising polarities that change radially to meet the limitation of the claim because Davis explicitly discloses that the annular magnet may be segmented in multiple magnets (13:55-59) and Fritsch discloses that there a finite number of identified solutions of coding the polarities of a plurality of magnets such that the polarities of magnets can either change circumferentially or radially (ex., compare fig. 5 and 7). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the annular magnet as a plurality of magnets comprising polarities that change radially is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights